A December job posting by Apple could indicate an increased emphasis on cloud-based aspects of applications like iWork.

In a potential signal that Apple plans on introducing a fully collaborative cloud-based version of iWork, a job posting revealed that Apple is looking for a software engineer well versed in browser technology, scalable internet applications and word processing development.

TechCrunch noted that on its CrunchBoard job board, Apple posted the following job description:

The Productivity team (i.e. iWork) is seeking an energetic, highly motivated software engineer in building a scalable rich internet application. The person will be part of the core development team and engage in an area from design to development of the software system.

Besides exceptional programming skills and devotion to creating great software, we look for one or more of the following kinds of expertise or experience:

"What caught our eye on this one is the language around building an application, from design to development. That suggests something different than just joining the existing team. Apple is putting together a whole new team, for a new project, and they need outside expertise," notes TechCrunch.

Apple has already started to incorporate cloud computing concepts into its iWork suite with the introduction of iWork.com in January of 2009. It allowed users to upload iWork '09 documents onto the web for online viewing, comments, and notes.

Apple has also made preparations for a large push into the cloud computing arena. This summer, Apple selected a site for its $1 billion server farm, a project that many believe is intended to power a giant cloud computing operation.

MobileMe was Apple's initial foray into the cloud, delivering push e-mail, contacts, and calendars to handheld devices and computers via the internet.

Apple's work with scripting frameworks (between SproutCore, Gianduia, PastryKit, TuneKit, Coherent etc. and building RIAs is pretty interesting, so it is good to see more resources being devoted in this direction.

It will be interesting to see what the produce. I certainly think we can do better than Google docs.

Let me get this straight......OK?
Apple has how many employees?
And they cannot hire for this job within?
Or, did they post it internally, as per most company's HR requirements, and no one wanted it?
Or,
Do they have to post it externally, while posting for it internally, wherein it is already filled by someone who was promised the job?

So, they are posting for a job that is already filled, giving themselves a marketing disadvantage, or no one internally wants.

It is so very hard to get a foot in the door when everyone else is already in the room. Cloud based word processing is still new. Now is the time to do this. I think it's great.

And how many employees Apple has isn't really the issue. They each have assigned tasks. We all saw what happened when the iPhone deadline was nearing. OSX development was postponed so the iPhone could release on time. What Apple has is stretched thin, regardless of the number. Apple needs to expand if this is to be a long-term effort. If Apple's investing a billion dollars in a NOC, then this is long-term thinking.

Let me get this straight......OK?
Apple has how many employees?
And they cannot hire for this job within?
Or, did they post it internally, as per most company's HR requirements, and no one wanted it?
Or,
Do they have to post it externally, while posting for it internally, wherein it is already filled by someone who was promised the job?

So, they are posting for a job that is already filled, giving themselves a marketing disadvantage, or no one internally wants.

Or am I off base here?

Explain.

who knows, but companies only have so many employees to do so many tasks. i don't think it would be something that apple needs to keep secret, it's just some iwork stuff, not something so heavily copied and game-changing like the iphone.

It better be free. iWork is short on features and overpriced to begin with.

iWork is unlikely to ever be free. but if this was an additional feature rather than a program you also have to pay for, that would be better.

My hope is that they aren't going to dump the desktop version. I personally have no interest in cloud computing. I want to be able to work on my own computer without my documents being forced to be on someone else's computer in any shape or form.

i actually wonder if perhaps a cloud option is worked on for use with devices that lack the same level of computing power as a full laptop or desktop. like maybe an iphone or a tablet

iWork is unlikely to ever be free. but if this was an additional feature rather than a program you also have to pay for, that would be better.

My hope is that they aren't going to dump the desktop version. I personally have no interest in cloud computing. I want to be able to work on my own computer without my documents being forced to be on someone else's computer in any shape or form.

i actually wonder if perhaps a cloud option is worked on for use with devices that lack the same level of computing power as a full laptop or desktop. like maybe an iphone or a tablet

Same here, regarding zero interest in cloud computing nonsense. Sometimes these large companies all start going in the wrong direction in parallel.

Let me get this straight......OK?
Apple has how many employees?
And they cannot hire for this job within?
Or, did they post it internally, as per most company's HR requirements, and no one wanted it?
Or,
Do they have to post it externally, while posting for it internally, wherein it is already filled by someone who was promised the job?

So, they are posting for a job that is already filled, giving themselves a marketing disadvantage, or no one internally wants.

Or am I off base here?

Explain.

Ever hear of expansion? New jobs for new products.

I seriously doubt that any jobs at Apple are supernumerary enough to simply be vacated willy nilly to fill the new slot.

Let me get this straight......OK?
Apple has how many employees?
And they cannot hire for this job within?
(post truncated)

If I recall correctly (and I really could be wrong since I am not an HR expert), California employment law stipulates that open positions must be advertised externally. So Apple can interview a handful of external candidates and safely say, "we're picking an internal candidate because they are the best fit for this team, blah blah blah."

That said, I believe that there is a push to turn iWork into a web service. Maybe for this phantom tablet, maybe because of Google Docs, but a lot of this mundane stuff is moving to the Web. Already, many consumers are happy using webmail services.

As always-on Internet connections (via cellular networking) proliferates, the necessity for a standalone, offline client declines. Yes, there will always be places where there is no networking available, but newer web technologies seem to be understanding this limitation.

A cached mode iWork client for a tablet-type device might be in the works.

iWork is unlikely to ever be free. but if this was an additional feature rather than a program you also have to pay for, that would be better.

My hope is that they aren't going to dump the desktop version. I personally have no interest in cloud computing. I want to be able to work on my own computer without my documents being forced to be on someone else's computer in any shape or form.

i actually wonder if perhaps a cloud option is worked on for use with devices that lack the same level of computing power as a full laptop or desktop. like maybe an iphone or a tablet

I think you're onto something there with your last comment.

The iSlate could access one's MobileMe account and create/edit iWork documents during one's train or bus commutes or via 3G/4G cellular access, while not having to have the computing power or local storage to run the app on the device.

One could also stream media content to the Slate from one's cloud account.

This could very well be the genius to the iSlate's design--to incorporate cloud computing and streaming to allow for the relative compactness and lower computing power of such a device.

Note that Google Docs is not free if you want the business-grade support. It’s $50/year per user. It does get plenty of business related services not offered by iWork, but iWork also has plenty of features that Google Apps doesn’t offer.

•

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/b.../features.html
I highly doubt that it will be free or that they will include more than a trial of iWork.com once the beta (started January 6th, 2009) has ended. I’ll also be surprised, pleasantly so, if they include a web-code version of Keynote that is good. Google Docs presentation app is pretty bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by g3pro

It better be free. iWork is short on features and overpriced to begin with.

I don’t disagree with it being overpriced for your needs, but saying that it better be free sounds like you are implying that it’s overpriced for everyone.

I don’t care for Google Docs limitations without simplicity and don’t need the power of MS Office or the limitations of the open source solutions. I need the easy to use Pages and Keynote. I see no other suite that fits my occasional needs as well as iWork.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Same here, regarding zero interest in cloud computing nonsense. Sometimes these large companies all start going in the wrong direction in parallel.

I'm no fan of "cloud computing" either, and yet I think it's folly to dismiss it. It is going to be big, if only because it's cheap and will save big corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just do the math on Google's offering: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/b...ing_value.html

Also, I heard from someone who knows someone who knows what's going on at Google, and the word is that cloud computing is bigger than anyone yet realizes.

I know that last bit sounds really stupid... But I did hear that from the cited source, and there does seem to be substantiation throughout the ether.

I watch the stock market and have gotten parallel vibes.
Here's some free info from my own recent investigation; the numbers just to the right of the stock symbols are the price per share on 11-27-09; the rating out of 10 is from MSN Stocks, same for the Buy/Hold/Sell roccommendations:

GOOG already has big companies using its Google Apps and cloud computing will probably grow if only because it's cheap. Also, GOOG is set to produce its own hardware in a phone and in a netbook. The netbook could especially be big if cloud computing takes off.

AKAM basically sells a "private internet" to big companies that benefit from having traffic efficiently routed.

VMW can turn one actual server into 4 or 5 virtual servers. This will open up possibilities for companies that turn to cloud computing (it will free-up their existing servers and open new possibilities). Of course, virtual servers will facilitate cloud computing in the first place.

EMC owns about 80% of VMware.

AAPL is the dark horse in cloud computing (in my opinion). What are its plans for that server farm it recently inked? Tablet or netbook in the future? What about the iPhone?

MSFT may be in play from a cloud perspective due to its efforts at getting MS Office into that realm. Also, what effect will its "ribbon" interface actually have wrt locking-in users. Finally, Windows 7 is doing well and MSFT will probably never go away.

INTC will benefit from its Atom processor.

ARMH will benefit from its ARM chips.

Full disclosure: I own stock in AAPL and INTC. Other companies may compose stocks in various index funds I own; I'm not sure.

When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?-Flight of the Conchords

I'm no fan of "cloud computing" either, and yet I think it's folly to dismiss it. It is going to be big, if only because it's cheap and will save big corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just do the math on Google's offering: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/b...ing_value.html

Also, I heard from someone who knows someone who knows what's going on at Google, and the word is that cloud computing is bigger than anyone yet realizes.

I think our perception is off because how we define "cloud computing is off. We seem to be looking it at from a perceptive that it has to be maintained from the cloud and that we have to be online to use it. This is simply not the case.

Google Gears gave us offline storage of their apps but they are moving to HTML5 along with Apple, MS and others which has local DB caching in the spec and already added to WebKit andGecko, and coming to IE8. A web-code based apps look to be the future and the three biggest tech companies are already perusing it heavily.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Pure speculation, but I think the server $1B server farm has to do more with content distribution. Besides the current iTunes and App store content, I suspect Apple will get into media distribution like TV content, movies, magazines, news papers... especially the media rich stuff being discussed for the iTablet.

I think spreadsheets, word type stuff is yesterday's news... though it is essential to keep Google from controlling the customer. I suspect Microsoft will have hi powered MS Office running in the cloud. That is the standard for businesses.

Regardless, I want to have data right with me locally or in a LAN server. I need the privacy, security and dedicated data processing. Not dependent on somebody like Google or the telco.

A few people have said this... I don't get it.
Unless Apple is laying off in a big way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna

My hope is that they aren't going to dump the desktop version. I personally have no interest in cloud computing. I want to be able to work on my own computer without my documents being forced to be on someone else's computer in any shape or form.

I would really like to see a hybrid approach. To a large degree, it's been web or local... they need to merge better.

Ideally, I'd like my whole user folder to be in the cloud with a full synced copy on my hard disk.
* Great backup (when there's a cloud OR local hardware problems!)
* Fast opening of data by using local synced version
* Offline usage perfect via local data
* access/edit my stuff via web apps OR local apps
* Let a document be collaborated on - me on my local app working with my colleague on a web-based app etc etc.
* full syncs at home (minimal syncs while mobile)

Yes it does sound like they are setting up a "cloud" based service for some iWork apps. I hope they continue to make the standalaone iWork software as well, for those who don't want to use "cloud computing" apps (bandwidth, need to have Internet connection, etc.)

I highly doubt that iWork will go online. For several reasons:
1) iWork is designed to have high quality (print-ready) output that would not be very difficult to achieve in browsers for next several years
2) iWork is well integrated with OS X at level that is yet unreachable in browsers
3) Apple keeps creative software Mac-exclusive (even SW that was cross-platform before Apple bought it)

We will probably see just improvements in sharing capabilities and document workflow online like current iWork.com. Where everybody can download finished version of a document or have comments. While all creative stuff is still done in iWork desktop application. What I would really love to see support for realtime document sharing enabling a single document to be edited by multiple people (but in desktop application).

For me Keynote and Numbers beat competition to the ground including MS Office (both Win and Mac), OpenOffice.org and Google Docs. Google Docs advantage is simultaneous editing of a single document. However I still have to use OpenOffice.org for technical documentation as Pages misses support for automatic numbering of tables/figures and cross-referecning. I sincerely hope that next version of iWork is released soon and will properly support cross-referencing, so I could finally leave OpenOffice.

I'm curious about iWork.com, but with Google Docs and OpenOffice.org there's really no reason for me to use iWork.
That said, if I was going to buy an office suite, I'd rather go with iWork than Office for Mac for two reasons. One, I trust Apple; I don't trust Microsoft. Two, the price; iWork is $79 and Office for Mac is 129.95. To complain about iWork's price is ludicrous. Also, I'd imagine iWork is more intuitive, easier to use, and therfore less infuriating to use than Office for Mac because Office for PC causes me nothing but headaches.

I'm curious about iWork.com, but with Google Docs and OpenOffice.org there's really no reason for me to use iWork.
That said, if I was going to buy an office suite, I'd rather go with iWork than Office for Mac for two reasons. One, I trust Apple; I don't trust Microsoft. Two, the price; iWork is $79 and Office for Mac is 129.95. To complain about iWork's price is ludicrous. Also, I'd imagine iWork is more intuitive, easier to use, and therfore less infuriating to use than Office for Mac because Office for PC causes me nothing but headaches.

google docs also monitors your work and prevents you from sharing documents if they don't like the content

I'm no fan of "cloud computing" either, and yet I think it's folly to dismiss it. It is going to be big, if only because it's cheap and will save big corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just do the math on Google's offering: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/b...ing_value.html

Also, I heard from someone who knows someone who knows what's going on at Google, and the word is that cloud computing is bigger than anyone yet realizes.

I know that last bit sounds really stupid... But I did hear that from the cited source, and there does seem to be substantiation throughout the ether.

I watch the stock market and have gotten parallel vibes.
Here's some free info from my own recent investigation; the numbers just to the right of the stock symbols are the price per share on 11-27-09; the rating out of 10 is from MSN Stocks, same for the Buy/Hold/Sell roccommendations:

GOOG already has big companies using its Google Apps and cloud computing will probably grow if only because it's cheap. Also, GOOG is set to produce its own hardware in a phone and in a netbook. The netbook could especially be big if cloud computing takes off.

AKAM basically sells a "private internet" to big companies that benefit from having traffic efficiently routed.

VMW can turn one actual server into 4 or 5 virtual servers. This will open up possibilities for companies that turn to cloud computing (it will free-up their existing servers and open new possibilities). Of course, virtual servers will facilitate cloud computing in the first place.

EMC owns about 80% of VMware.

AAPL is the dark horse in cloud computing (in my opinion). What are its plans for that server farm it recently inked? Tablet or netbook in the future? What about the iPhone?

MSFT may be in play from a cloud perspective due to its efforts at getting MS Office into that realm. Also, what effect will its "ribbon" interface actually have wrt locking-in users. Finally, Windows 7 is doing well and MSFT will probably never go away.

INTC will benefit from its Atom processor.

ARMH will benefit from its ARM chips.

Full disclosure: I own stock in AAPL and INTC. Other companies may compose stocks in various index funds I own; I'm not sure.

where i work we're a EMC, MSFT, VMW and GOOG customer. VMW is not cloud computing, trust me. it's good for some things and a PITA for others. EMC are crack dealers, they charge you $800 for a 500GB hard drive.

cloud computing is a stupid marketing term. 10 years ago it was web services, then the tech media used a few others like software as a service. cloud computing is the latest buzz word. in reality it's not as easy as the buzz marketing suggests. and not as cheap.

i checked the pricing of Amazon's EC2 compared to a physical HP Proliant server, and the physical server is cheaper

I work off my iDisk completely. I Have a "Documents" folder (an alias) sitting in the Dock, pointing to the same folder on my iDisk. I have access to my files from anywhere in the world from any device that has a browser, and I can work on my files from virtually any device that has a browser and can edit text. Whatever syncs automatically with my iDisk is saved locally. All on the fly. I work with nearly 4gb of data in this manner.

network resources have always been there since the introduction of the original PC you could connect it to a mainframe. cloud computing is the same sales pitch as the ASP of the late 1980's. where you turn everything to an application service provider to run all your apps remotely.

i use Google a lot including Google Wave and it reminds me of the old stories of mainframe time sharing since Google is becoming slow. and i've seen Chrome use up 600MB of RAM while in Wave making the whole thin client theory completely wrong

Let me get this straight......OK?
Apple has how many employees?
And they cannot hire for this job within?
Or, did they post it internally, as per most company's HR requirements, and no one wanted it?
Or,
Do they have to post it externally, while posting for it internally, wherein it is already filled by someone who was promised the job?

So, they are posting for a job that is already filled, giving themselves a marketing disadvantage, or no one internally wants.

Or am I off base here?

Explain.

Yes, because all of apple's programmers have experience as RIA devs and they aren't doing anything else important.

No company ever expands by hiring new folks and Apple is so short on funds that this is obviously a move of desperation where no one internally wants the job.

i checked the pricing of Amazon's EC2 compared to a physical HP Proliant server, and the physical server is cheaper

Can your HP Proliant server surge when you get a lot of traffic? How much for the high availability options for redundancy? How much for that HP Proliant server at a colo with a 24/7 NOC and IT support?

Yah, a bare server is maybe cheaper if you're using it at full load 24/7.

$0.015 per instance hour for monitoring and autoscaling. Like say I need extra capacity every end of month or quarter I can just scale up for those short periods and not have to have extra capacity around idle most of the time. Or even autoscale during the day. Assume I need extra servers during the day for 8 hours. Cost $910 + 52 weeks * 40 hours * $0.12/hour. That's $1159.60 per large instance per year. Heck, I've got UPSs that cost that much.

For a dual core HP Proliant DL120 with 6GB ram, 900GB HDD, and RHEL runs $2700. That's not including the rack, switch, and UPS you need. Plus the cost for electricity, IT, etc.

For $1.5-$2K a year + the ability to add or remove servers instantly it's an excellent choice for both startups and larger companies without an IT focus.

MSFT may be in play from a cloud perspective due to its efforts at getting MS Office into that realm. Also, what effect will its "ribbon" interface actually have wrt locking-in users. Finally, Windows 7 is doing well and MSFT will probably never go away.

Google Windows Azure. Still just a CTP (community tech preview) with a 2010 launch date. It has an expected $0.12 per hour rate.

It's insecure, a privacy and data loss risk. It's designed to be on products that mandate a cell phone or wifi connection in order to function, so it will suck your wallet dry every month too.

With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.

Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.

Yea...

The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...

It's insecure, a privacy and data loss risk. It's designed to be on products that mandate a cell phone or wifi connection in order to function, so it will suck your wallet dry every month too.

With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.

Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.

Yea...

How is IDisk/MobileMe a "data loss risk" when everything is saved locally as well? Have you ever used any of these services? Why do you assume you won't have synced local copies of everything?

With Intel's 80 core prototype processors that run cooler and use less power than present duo cores and the coming 2TB SDXC memory that's twice as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, there is no need for hard drives, superdrives or "the cloud" expect for spooks, hackers and DRM loving media companies.

Ask Apple why their new SD slot can access SDXC higher storage, but not the speed.

Yea...

Besides what Quadra stated, there are no 80-core consumer machines on the market, they have nothing to do with storage, and 2TB SDXC are not on the horizon, they just a max limit that wont be achieved for many years. Toshiba is only up to 64GB for SDXC.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Can your HP Proliant server surge when you get a lot of traffic? How much for the high availability options for redundancy? How much for that HP Proliant server at a colo with a 24/7 NOC and IT support?

Yah, a bare server is maybe cheaper if you're using it at full load 24/7.

$0.015 per instance hour for monitoring and autoscaling. Like say I need extra capacity every end of month or quarter I can just scale up for those short periods and not have to have extra capacity around idle most of the time. Or even autoscale during the day. Assume I need extra servers during the day for 8 hours. Cost $910 + 52 weeks * 40 hours * $0.12/hour. That's $1159.60 per large instance per year. Heck, I've got UPSs that cost that much.

For a dual core HP Proliant DL120 with 6GB ram, 900GB HDD, and RHEL runs $2700. That's not including the rack, switch, and UPS you need. Plus the cost for electricity, IT, etc.

For $1.5-$2K a year + the ability to add or remove servers instantly it's an excellent choice for both startups and larger companies without an IT focus.

RAM is so cheap that you can just buy 32GB of RAM and not worry about it. we had one of these data surges a few weeks ago on a DL360 with 8GB RAM. a week later it had 32GB and normal use is 2GB for that server

I don't know about DL120's but i compared the price of a DL380 with 32GB of RAM which is what our minimum buy spec is now compared to EC2. Proliant G6 servers will take up to 144GB of RAM allowing you to buy less machines and not worry about using EC2

EC2 costs $10000 per year or so. physical server around $10,000. and i don't think i accounted for the data transfer charges and the increased bandwidth costs we'll have to pay. and we still have proliant servers from 10 years ago doing some things. sometimes we use them for testing, other times they still do work. with Amazon we would still be paying

Anyhow, iWork being on the desktop or in the cloud seems like unnecessary either/or logic to me. If iWork.com suggests anything in its beta version, it's a cloud extension of desktop iWork, not a replacement. I believe the impending slate device and the evidently in development cloud-based extension of iWork are related.

DON'T USE 'CLOUD' APPLICATIONS! THE 'CLOUD' OWNER – APPLE IN THIS CASE – RECORDS AND STORES EVERYTHING, EVERY CLICK, AND EVERY KEYSTROKE YOU DO IN THAT 'CLOUD'. INCLUDING YOUR IDENTITY (your IP address). THAT IS VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION FOR APPLE, FOR THE FEDS, AND FOR HACKERS! DATABASES GET LOST, SOLD, AND HACKED ALL THE TIME! THAT WILL ONLY GET WORSE, NOT BETTER!

AND WHAT ABOUT YOUR DATA SECURITY? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN THAT 'CLOUD' IS SUDDENLY, OVERNIGHT, NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR YOU ANYMORE? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET ACCESS TO YOUR DATA THEN?

SO DON'T KEEP YOUR DATA IN ANY 'CLOUD'.

For exactly the same reasons you should not use Google, because Google also records and stores all your search terms, your search patters, your clicks, and your identity (IP address). And that can come back to haunt you.

Use IXQuick instead! IXQuick does not record or store IP addresses, so your identity cannot be combined with your search terms, search patterns, and clicks!

DON'T USE 'CLOUD' APPLICATIONS! THE 'CLOUD' OWNER – APPLE IN THIS CASE – RECORDS AND STORES EVERYTHING, EVERY CLICK, AND EVERY KEYSTROKE YOU DO IN THAT 'CLOUD'. INCLUDING YOUR IDENTITY (your IP address). THAT IS VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION FOR APPLE, FOR THE FEDS, AND FOR HACKERS! DATABASES GET LOST, SOLD, AND HACKED ALL THE TIME! THAT WILL ONLY GET WORSE, NOT BETTER!

AND WHAT ABOUT YOUR DATA SECURITY? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN THAT 'CLOUD' IS SUDDENLY, OVERNIGHT, NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR YOU ANYMORE? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET ACCESS TO YOUR DATA THEN?

SO DON'T KEEP YOUR DATA IN ANY 'CLOUD'.

For exactly the same reasons you should not use Google, because Google also records and stores all your search terms, your search patters, your clicks, and your identity (IP address). And that can come back to haunt you.

Use IXQuick instead! IXQuick does not record or store IP addresses, so your identity cannot be combined with your search terms, search patterns, and clicks!